Masters v. Masters

Masters v. Masters
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1994-04-28
Report
[1994] 1 SCR 883
Case number
22676
Judges
La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.
On appeal from
Saskatchewan
Subjects
Family law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 22676
Decision Content
Masters v. Masters, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 883
Andre Barclay Masters Appellant
v.
Georgia Annette Masters Respondent
Indexed as: Masters v. Masters
File No.: 22676.
1994: April 28.
Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan
Family law ‑‑ Maintenance ‑‑ No error on part of trial judge and no radical change in circumstances from those contemplated at time of separation agreement ‑‑ Wife not represented at hearing and Court without benefit of factum or submissions from wife.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1991), 93 Sask. R. 241, 4 W.A.C. 241, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 253, 34 R.F.L. (3d) 34, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Malone J. (1990), 82 Sask. R. 190, 24 R.F.L. (3d) 374, dismissing an application to vary maintenance. Appeal dismissed.
R. Bradley Hunter, for the appellant.
No one appeared for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
McLachlin J. ‑‑ This is an appeal from an order of a trial judge declining to vary support agreed to under a separation agreement. The wife was successful in both courts below. No error in the findings or reasoning of the trial judge has been established. The trial judge found that the separation agreement was final. No unforeseen or radical change in circumstances from those contemplated at the time of the separation agreement was demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the issue of whether, had such change been demonstrated, that change need be causally connected to the circumstances of the marriage, or if so, was demonstrated on the evidence in this case to have been causally connected; it would be unwise to do so since she was not represented by counsel at the hearing in this Court, and we did not have the benefit of a factum or submissions from her.
We would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Cuelenaere, Kendall, Fisher, Gaucher, Katzman & Duncan, Regina.
Solicitors for the respondent: Merchant Law Group, Regina.